NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/2404/2010

MY CAR (BHOPAL) PVT. LTD. & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

PRAMOD SINGH RAJPUT & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. AGHA JEELANI

03 Aug 2010

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

REVISION PETITION NO. 2404 OF 2010

(Against the Order dated 30/10/2009 in Appeal No. 1832/2009 of the State Commission Madhya Pradesh)

1. MY CAR (BHOPAL) PVT. LTD. & ANR. Opp. Vidhan Sabha Bhopal Madhya Pradesh 2. MANAGER, MYCAR SHOWROOM NX-69, Rasulia Hoshangabad Madhya Pradesh	...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. PRAMOD SINGH RAJPUT & ANR. R/o. Dolariya Tehsil Hoshangabad Madhya Pradesh 2. MAHENDRA AND MAHENDRA FINANCE Plot No. 4, National Highway Itarsi Road, Rasuliya Hoshangabad Madhya Pradesh	...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
	HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA, PRESIDING MEMBER
	HON'BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :

NEMO

For the Respondent :

NEMO

Dated : 03 Aug 2010

ORDER

Heard Counsel for the Petitioner. The revision has been filed against the concurrent findings of two fora below. Delay of 152 days for which the explanation is found in para-3 of the condonation application reads as under:- hat since the Petitioner is a Private Limited Company and fully based in Bhopal so after the passing of the impugned order by the M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission time was taken in taking the decision for the further course of legal action against the impugned order and since t he matter had to file in New Delhi only so it took little more time to contact the present counsel and as such a delay of 158 days has been caused in filing this present revision petition. The above explanation by no stretch of imagination can be considered as sufficient to condone delay. No details have been given as to when the legal action was started to take decision and how the matter was delayed on account of the fact that the matter had to be filed in Delhi. It may be pointed out that a valuable right accrues in favour of the opposite party unless the remedy is sought within the time prescribed and the said valuable right cannot be set at knot until and unless the delay is sufficiently explained. On this count alone the revision is dismissed. On merits also, we do not find that any case has been made out for interference as against the concurrent findings of two fora below. The District Forum had disbelieved the case of the petitioner that the cheque of Rs.54192/- was never received. It is has been rightly pointed out by the District Forum that if the said cheque has not been received then Opposite party no.1 should have claimed a sum of Rs.11,022/- from the complainant by raising a demand. In view of the above, even on merits, we do not find any ground for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as we do not find any jurisdictional error, illegality or material irregularity in the orders of fora below. The revision is, therefore, dismissed on both the counts, i.e., delay in filing the revision as also on merits with no order as to costs.

......................J

R.K. BATTA

PRESIDING MEMBER

......................

VINAY KUMAR

MEMBER